Many years ago I read an article written by some woman I cannot remember about Vibrators.She said that they were so good that there was no need for man.Man had been replaced by his own invention !Redundant so to speak.

Not encouraging reading for an 18 yr old.

Now many years later we have new inventions.Feeldoe for the girls who want to driveand the man who wants to be driven.

Fleshlight for the man without who wants to be within.

Aneros.The tool which can deliver incredible orgasm with no inputbut your imiganation.Orgasm with the frequency of a female.Not a one shot wonder.

So has woman been replaced by mans handiwork.

This is the fear !

Redundant. Rejected. Unloved.

The fear is in the mind, just like Sex and orgasm.Yes you can withdraw into a shell surrounded with porn and toysby the lorryload. An endless supply.Something new every day.

It is in mankinds nature to experiment.It is how we got here today.

For me nothing can replace that feeling when a woman opens her leg's for you.The male and female form are hardwired into us otherwise we would not be here.

My wife is away and I miss her.I tell her every time we talk.

So take heart you will never be redundant.Rejected for a few minutes now and again during a squabble.Redundant I think not.

Very good point Voyager! :)Toys cannot replace the love, communication, friendship, and energy, that can be between two people that are close to each other. Although if you are without a partner, it certainly doesn't hurt to have some toys for sexual gratification.

Time will tell. The one constant is change....Nobody can expect 100000s of years of evolution to be annihilated in one generation, but the start at least is promising, striking at dependancy's reason d'etre. Something's going to change in the status quo that's for sure and my guess it won't be the women with their vibrators as they have always been the passive recipients, my guess is it'll be the active participant in this sexually unequal equation.

Wanna make babies? Here's the fucking testtube!

Btw: love isn't the reason, it's trying to make it different from (other)animal copulation, a rationalisation if you will

The rapid changes apparently underway in male expectations and life are driven by the greater facts and changing patterns of planetary dynamics that effect everything now. We are now about Six Billion - 6,000,000,000 +; headed to Nine Billion - 9,000,000,000 in the next 50 years or so, even with the dropping birth rates in most developed countries. China and the One Child Policy. The socio-economics of raising children in every society. Consciously or sub-consciously, these are all serious determinants pressing in on modern men and women.

The search for new reasons and meaning for sex, sexual activity, sexual relationships are also changing the proportions and aesthetics of our eroticism at profound fundamental levels. Even those of us having our 1 or 2 children, are feeling the changes from paternalistic breeder marriages, to shared eroticist, egalitarian love, and unforced life-long relationships as a new evolving "traditional" monogamous heterosexual marriage. Homosexual marriages are a natural need in these circumstances, as well as being a civil right.

Aneros and the other sex technologies are inevitable in these circumstances. Aneros and some of the techniques currently marketed for enhanced sex, like KSMO, are actually the keys to a much greater and more significant male whole health and spiritual development that has the potential to rapidly evolve planetary society in important multi-dimensional ways.

Every male is gaining more information and support for his journey to his full truth as an exquisite energetic aesthetic eroticist in the astounding wholeness potential of his life, far beyond the ideological roles as taxpayer and consumer of stuff and other people.

Regarding fear of overpopulation, my greater fear is who is doing the overpopulating: the ignorant, stupid, lazy, irresponsible - these are who the gov't doles out money - to have more children; they can be easily manipulated and ruled over. It's been a long-known and documented fact that single parents stay below the poverty level much moreso than married couples with children, plus the propensity of those children will become single parents, plus their inclination towards crime because there is little discipline in the home all add up to a stupid, immoral, populace that requires more government control over their lives and can be easily manipulated ("vote for me, and I'll give you 'free' money").

In a similar note, how about that fool in Muskegon, MI who fathered 23 kids with 14 women, and owes $500,000+ in back palimony?

I actually concur with Badger. I've always found the ideas of eugenics repugnant as it's always associated with Hitler and the 3rd Reich. But looking at the overpopulation in the world I think our species is going to have to start looking at quality rather than quantity. It's nature's way that women select their 'spermdonors'based on the characteristics that are winning properties in the milieu she's from as that's programmed into her to provide her offspring with the best chances of survival, BUT, any women with a cunt can crap out a kiddie...so perhaps for the benefit of our species we should also be evaluating the women in the process, afterall it takes two to tango and the child is the result of two genepools.

IMO the women that want to be a mother should prove their worthiness first. I mean, just coz she can bare children doesn't mean she ought to, just like just coz men can potentially impregnate hundreds of million women with one masturbationsession doesn't mean they can or will.

Normally you'd say it would be a good idea that the type of male that's a winner in society could choose the female he wants to make babies with, coz she's programmed to want that anyway. So if killers are valued in society there the ones that can reproduce. In our society obviously money is valued so that would mean rich men could only reproduce(and obviously pay for the 'priviledge') and choose the women they want. The problem here is, that there's something sexually attractive about pretty dumb women. I don't think it's surprising in that context that women like Marilyn Monroe is still considered the ultimate sexsymbol. On Pornbb the women I find most arousing are the 'empty shells', women with all the features(body, boobs, ass) but with an empty dumb stare. Something less arousing about women with 'personality'.This reminds me of an anecdote about Einstein and MM, something about MM wanting children saying:"Imagine Albert, our children having my looks and your brains", Einstein:"or my looks and your brains"

//start rant// At the risk of being labeled as a 'socialistic central planner' ...

the Asians are well ahead of us (Westerners) in addressing overpopulation and cherishing the value of a well educated, cohesive family. Aside from the widely-publicized fleshpots that exploit children, each kid seems valued and is cherished and educated to the limit of family resources.

Over 40 years ago Singapore and Malaysia instituted progressive "dis-incentive" taxes for families that grew beyond a single child. (Have all you want but it's gonna cost you, big-time.) It worked there as it's now working in China.

Asians and Europeans seem adept at tracking population and individuals. India recently registered nearly everyone in the country for about a dollar a head. Torn between the need for data and the juggling of states-rights and individual-rights, we've made the national census an expensive annoyance of limited value. My 'chipped' dog is more easily identified than am I. (Yeah, rook is pissed-off at having to remove his shoes at the airport !)

The Orientals seem far ahead of us, not only regarding the value of children but also in their approach to sex. Years ago in Japan, I asked a casual yet long-term acquaintance about her views toward sex... "...enjoyable, memorable; and, a normal biological function." During my Puritanical upbringing, I had never been exposed to the concept of sex as a "normal biological function." (Even though my Psych 101 course, circa 1951 had taught that sex was one more 'drive' comparable to hunger.)

Regarding accountability for spawning offspring, we (us in the US) are totally paranoid about identifying the paternity of all births -- an "invasion of privacy." Time to step up to the plate and be ready to tax.

Selective breeding isn't necessary. In the U.S. we seldom approach the ultimate learning capacity of our newborns. Again, we have a hang-up on appealing to states-rights, individual-rights and the freedom to do nothing.

My thought --- The less education one has, the harder he or she will work. The rich gather more wealth and the poor have children. We need to redefine accountability and responsibility.

Another thought -- since WWII the better sex toys have been inspired, designed, developed, manufactured and marketed in China and Japan.